Monday, April 20, 2009

Let's roll back the 20th century, Not.

Graph Source: UN Panel on Climate Change, 1995

more from Jules on his crusade against the pseudo-science of global warming.

I would rather see poor countries get out of their poverty – have cars and air-con, CAT scans and cheap nrj. Also, it’s fairly evident that poor countries are the ones which take the least care of their environment – eg Indonesia fishing out it’s stocks, and deforesting it’s great forests.The way out of poverty for 3rd world countries is trade with rich countries, cheap electricity, and industrialization (or and/or services if you are Switzerland). The sooner it becomes evident that man-made Co2 has nothing to do with climate change, the better.When humanity is colonizing Mars and has Fusion-powered power stations etc, they will look back at the present hair-shirt back to the Hamish-farm movement with amazement.some cut and paste:Professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said:

“future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age”.

Dr Martin Hertzberg, a physical chemist and retired Navy meteorologist, sums up the climate - both intellectual and physical:As a scientist and lifelong liberal Democrat, I find the constant regurgitation of the anecdotal, fear-mongering clap-trap about human-caused global warming to be a disservice to science...From the El Nino year of 1998 until Jan., 2007, the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere near its surface decreased some 0.25 C. From Jan. 2007 until the spring of 2008, it dropped a whopping 0.75 C.

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in history …When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, environmental physical chemist.

"The IPCC's estimates of growth in atmospheric CO2 concentration are excessive. They assume CO2 concentration will rise exponentially from today's 385 parts per million to reach 730 to 1020 ppm, central estimate 836 ppm, by 2100. However, for seven years, CO2 concentration has been rising in a straight line towards just 575 ppmv by 2100. This alone halves the IPCC's temperature projections."

Roy Spencer argues that the reason there seems to be a consensus among scientists regarding "global warming theory" is that 1) most scientists don't actually conduct research on the forecasting models the theory is based on, and so, though they are scientists, are not any more knowledgeable than laypersons regarding this particular theory and 2) scientists are human too, and as humans, fall victim to group think. Spencer points out that the mathematical models used to predict future climate are NOT akin to the forecasting methods meteorologists use to forecast next week's weather. Some important points: Sure, we are good at predicting whether it will rain tomorrow or in two days, but the validity of even short-term weather forecasts shrinks to nearly zero when trying to predict 10 days ahead or more. Climatologists using mathematical models to predict future climate, say, 100 years from now are playing a whole other ball game.

1 comment:

Cecilia
said...

Wow, Jules, this is a long piece with much thought put into it! You certainly are a philosopher. Must be in the genes...I now know much more about your doings than I did before.Love the photos, too.GOOD LUCK with your new life - not that you'll need it! You're perfect for this role! (And it sounds as if you must be *incredibly* fit, too.)x